WHATEVER the outcome of the Mark Duggan inquest, the police were going to lose. A verdict of unlawful killing would have reinforced community fears that there is in the Metropolitan Police, a cadre of officers far too ready to reach for guns.

The jury verdict of lawful killing offers no respite, as it has been described – and not just by supporters of the deceased – as puzzling and downright perverse.

I think the jury reached the right conclusion.

Before you say that as a former police officer I would say that wouldn’t I, can I add that there are aspects of the verdict that need further examination.

Additionally, I am all too aware that public confidence in the police in London, and nationwide, is as low as I can remember. I know the verdict must make the grief felt by the Duggan family worse.

But I do not believe that police and, in particular, highly-trained firearms officers, go out to work on a morning with the intention of executing someone. I believe that in this case that was never their intention.

The jury verdict seems to me to hinge on a fundamental legal issue. We know the deceased was not carrying a gun when he was shot. We know the jury believed he had thrown it away before the “hard-stop” intervention.

But they also decided that the stop was carried out correctly in order to minimise the potential use of lethal force. Finally, and crucially, they must have believed that when the shots were fired the officers had an honest and reasonable belief he had a gun, and posed an imminent threat.

I know that is not and probably never will be accepted by the family and friends of Mark Duggan. It is sure to be challenged in the courts. But it is narrative that the jury has found credible and I do, too.

It is hard for us, and probably even the jury who heard and saw the evidence, to capture the tension, fear and ultimate horror of the few moments that led to the shooting and to the soul-searching that has followed it. Very few of us have to take decisions in a split second on which our lives, and the lives of others, depend.

Those officers did and they did so knowing they cannot make the comfortable assumption that a suspect will be unarmed. In the past three years, there have been 50 fatal shootings in London: around one a month.

You cannot divorce the individual, tragic circumstances of this case from that statistic.

In August 2011, the shooting provoked the worst riots we have ever seen. When I saw the scenes outside the court and heard the angry, bitter comments – understandable from the family, less so from some politicians and lawyers – I thought we would see the same.

But yesterday, the tone had changed. Community leaders, family and police may not have been saying the same thing but at least they were on the same page and the message was one of pursuing redress by legal means and, ultimately, conciliation and closure. We shouldn’t kid ourselves how hard that will be.

I can only repeat that I have never known confidence in the police so low. It permeates every sector of society including those who regard themselves as traditional supporters of policing. We need to re-evaluate what we want and expect from our police forces and what support they need to provide consentbased policing in an increasingly fragmented society. It will be a long way back. I only hope that we can persuade everyone involved in this tragedy to come with us.